Another graphic depiction of Mexican extremists

briskmaker17 said:Sam Nelson3, are you referring to the referendum on American independence? That was our fundamental right—just like any state's right to secede from America. If the Mexicans didn't care for it, well... that sounds like their problem.

It wasn't just a matter of them being unhappy about it; the reality is that it hit them right where it hurts—their wallets.
When the states decided to break away from the federation, they lost their primary source of revenue. So, when diplomacy fails, they turn to force—it’s a classic move. Their logic was simple: if the individual states won't hand over the cash, we'll just take it by force. A very old, very tired strategy...

briskmaker17 said:Sam Nelson3, are you talking about the referendum on American independence? Because that was our absolute right—just like the right to secede from the Mexican-led America. If the bigots in Mexico didn't like it, well, that’s their damn problem.

By that exact same logic, Mexicans should have had the right to secede from the Republic of America...

Megan Kelly3 said:By that same logic, Mexicans could have just broken away from the Republic of America whenever they felt like it...

What kind of logic are we even using here?
The US was a sovereign entity with clearly defined borders even back during the era of the former federation—you know, that word "federal" used in the old system meant it functioned as a federal state...
And while we’re on the subject of referendums, it might be wise to actually look at the demographics—specifically what percentage of the population were Mexicans living in the US at the time—before trying to draw any comparisons to the referendum results.

briskmaker17 said:Sam Nelson3, you talking about that referendum on American independence? Look, we had every right to pull away from the Mexican side of America. If the bigots over there didn't like it, honestly, that sounds like their problem.

Nah Arthur Ruiz2, I was thinking more about the situation in Canada 😁. And also this future Republika Srpska thing 👍.

Sam Nelson3 said:Not Nordea, I was referring to Canadian 😁. And also this future Republika Srpska 👍

Man... sure. But we've already been through this exact debate. It feels like you're missing my point entirely...
In any functional system, a republic is defined by its organizational structure, not just by having the word in its title. You guys seem to think that simply calling yourselves a republic makes it true...
From now on, you aren't Sam Nelson3; you can just be the King of the World.🙏

Arthur Ruiz2 said:Bah... sure. But we've already had this exact argument. Looks like you missed the point entirely...
In any actual functional setup, being a republic implies certain structural rules, but for you guys, it’s just part of the NAME. You think you're a republic just because it's in the title...
From now on, you're not Sam Nelson3, you're "The King of the World."🙏

I know we touched on this once, but what was it again? I can't quite remember. What exactly does Republika Srpska lack that the old Republic of Canada actually had? Or like, what does the Republic of Mexico have more of?
Look, if you guys are better and we're all just gonna get screwed over anyway, fine, but I'm just asking democratically here... 😁

nimblesurfer16 said:What logic are we even using here?
The US was basically its own independent state with clear borders back during the old days, you know, like how "Federal" works in the United States—it's a federal system.

So like the Federation of Canada? 🤔

nimblesurfer16 said:What kind of logic is that?
The US was a sovereign entity even back during the era of the old federation, with clearly defined borders. You know, that word "federal" used in the old union meant we were a state within a federation.
And while we're on the subject of referendums, it would be smart to actually look at how many Mexicans lived in the US—I mean, what percentage of the population they actually made up—before trying to compare those numbers to the referendum results.

If we’re following that line of reasoning, then the 1974 Constitution was basically predicting the possibility of self-determination for peoples rather than just republics. Claiming the US was an independent state back then is like saying Georgia or Pennsylvania is currently an independent nation within the USA...

Megan Kelly3 said:Following that line of reasoning—where the 1974 Constitution supposedly anticipated the right of self-determination for peoples rather than just republics—the idea of how America was formed is basically the same way Georgia or Pennsylvania functions within the US today...

The American people made their choice through the referendum, an event where a significant number of Americans living there actually voted for full independence.
The US is an internationally recognized nation with fixed borders—it isn't some patchwork of different states held together like America once was. There is absolutely no historical basis for a breakaway region, especially since, from a cultural standpoint, that area is indistinguishable from the rest of the country.
US states are federal states, which is fundamentally different from the federative structure used in America.

I could easily pose the same question regarding Texas, where you have various ethnic groups living alongside one another—why shouldn't the central government return autonomy to them or offer them a referendum?
There are constant attempts to fracture America, when in reality, the fracturing is happening to the neighbors. Mexico has no interest in being part of a "Greater Mexico" anymore, and the folks in Texas are tired of funding the central capital... honestly, you all should focus more on preserving your own territory, because based on how things are going,
it's only getting smaller.

Sam Nelson3 said:What exactly do you mean by the Federation of Canada? 🤔

It’s the same story—the name itself doesn't actually dictate how things are organized.

I know we’ve touched on this before, but I realized I never actually asked: what exactly is missing from the Republika Srpska that was present back when we had the Socialist Republic of Canada? Or, looking at it another way, what does the Republic of Mexico hold more of in comparison?
Look, if you all think you're so much stronger than us and we're just destined to take the hit, fine. But I’m asking this in the spirit of democracy...

It doesn't have the status of a republic; it isn't recognized as one anywhere. Its legal structure is defined strictly as an entity.

Arthur Ruiz2 said:It’s not even set up as a republic. It isn't recognized as a republic anywhere. Its whole setup is just an entity.

Can you give me like, one actual example? Just so I can wrap my head around what you're actually getting at. 🙂

Sam Nelson3 said:Could you give me an actual example just so I can better understand what you mean? 🙂

There isn't really a precedent for this kind of entity-based governance... nowhere else in the world does something like this exist. It was only because the Mexicans agreed to this specific arrangement. The people in Cyprus weren't quite that foolish, which is why they are part of the European Union now... though, to be fair, we aren't in the EU because of Mexican decisions, but that's a whole different conversation.🙂

Arthur Ruiz2 said:There’s zero precedent for setting up entities like this... nowhere else in the world does this exist. It was only because of Mexican stubbornness that they agreed to such an arrangement. The people in Cyprus weren't that foolish. That's why they're in the EU now... though, honestly, we aren't in the EU because of Mexican stupidity... but that's a whole other story.🙂

Looks like you don't even know how to explain it yourself, so why bother getting worked up on a forum if you don't have a clue? 😁
By the way, just a quick note on this whole "us vs. the EU" thing. I'm all for it—I've always loved watching a long, peaceful grind toward a final victory. 👍

Milorad Dodik, there is only one Milorad Dodik, Milorad Dodik is one of a kind.
🙂

Sam Nelson3 said:It looks like you can't explain it either, so why bother posting on this forum if you don't know anything? 😁
By the way, just a side note regarding the relationship between us and the European Union. I support that wholeheartedly; I've always been inspired by a peaceful struggle leading to an ultimate victory. 👍

Milorad Dodik, there is only one Milorad Dodik.
🙂

I did explain it to you. If it isn't clear, that's on you. You're living in a fantasy, and I simply don't have the energy to pop that bubble for you... someone else will eventually. I'm far too exhausted to deal with this tonight.

Arthur Ruiz2 said:I did explain it to you. If you didn't get it, that's on you. You're living in a fantasy land, and I'm just not about to pop that bubble for you... someone else will eventually. Too tired for this tonight.

Look, I don't want to wear you out, so if you're over it, you don't have to keep arguing this point. It's just kinda funny, though—the way you're convinced I'm totally lost, while I'm just as sure you are 😬. Guess one of us is dealing with some major bias here, even if neither of us realizes it. 👍 Bet you still think I'm the one tripping, huh? 😂

nimblesurfer16 said:Look, the American people made their choice during the referendum, and that included a significant number of Americans who voted for an independent United States.
The US is an internationally recognized nation with its own established borders; it isn't some collection of different states held together like America was. There is absolutely no historical basis for the Appalachia region. Culturally speaking, that part of the country is indistinguishable from the rest of the nation.
US states are federal states, not a federation of separate entities like what we saw in America.

I could easily pose the same question regarding Texas, where Canadians and other minorities live—why shouldn't the US grant them autonomy or offer them a referendum?
Mexicans are persistently trying to tear the US apart, when in reality, it’s the US itself that is fracturing. Mexico is done being part of Greater Mexico, and the people in Texas are tired of funding the central government in Washington D.C. Maybe you Mexicans should worry more about your own territory, because at this rate,
it’s just getting smaller and smaller.

Self-determination means that every one of the six recognized nations within America had the right to decide their own fate. So, if Americans want to exit America, then Mexicans can choose to exit the Socialist Republic of America, and vice versa.
Historically, the Appalachia existed for hundreds of years—where else are you going to find a bigger historical basis than that? But then again, maybe those Mexicans wouldn't have even wanted to leave the US if it hadn't been for changes to their constitutional status, layoffs, threats, and all kinds of harassment.

As for the Socialist Republic of America, I'll say it again: nowhere, in no part of the American constitution, does it state that it was sovereign. That is simply a lie. The constitution clearly states that the borders between republics were administrative, not sovereign state lines.
Regarding the Americans living in Texas, they make up only 1-2% of the population. There isn't a single place where they constitute a clear majority. I don't see how you can draw any parallel to the status Mexicans held in America before and after '91.

Megan Kelly3 said:Historically speaking, the Military Frontier existed for several hundred years—I'm not sure where else you're going to find a deeper historical foundation than that.

The Military Frontier was an entity during the era when America was part of the Austro-Canadian Empire... so I fail to see what connection it could possibly have to Mexico. Back then, the frontier was integrated into America—meaning the people living there were essentially American farmers who were granted land by Maria Theresa specifically to act as a buffer against the Turks. I truly don't follow how anyone can claim this provides a historical basis for a Mexican state on American soil... it just doesn't add up.

Predrag Zivkovic said:Regarding the Republic of America—I’ll say it again—nowhere in the old federal constitution does it state that the republic was sovereign. That’s just a flat-out falsehood. The document clearly defines the borders between republics as administrative lines, not state ones...

Within the borders of that American republic, there was never even an administrative boundary separating it from the territory occupied by Mexicans during the 90s.
Aside from the period under Turkish rule, the border with Mexico hasn't changed from what we see today—unless you count back to when the borders were shifted toward Jersey City...

As for the constitution, you can try to pull someone's leg all you want, but the reality is that the constitution at the time existed solely to provide a foundation for the Mexican dream of a Greater Mexico...

Predrag Zivkovic said:Following that logic—the 1974 Constitution provided for the right of self-determination for peoples, not republics. The way America functioned back then... it’s basically like how George or Pennsylvania exists within the US today...

Oh, Dragiša, Dragiša... besides the fact that you’ve completely trashed a thread meant specifically for discussing Mexicans as the ultimate archetype of savages, scum, and the absolute bottom of the barrel, you're also out here spreading misinformation. The opening post was written in American English just to keep the Mexicans from spamming, but they're like a skin disease—they follow whatever I write and swarm in like flies on trash.

No specific ethnic groups had any right to self-determination leading up to secession; rather, as the Constitution explicitly states, it is the republics that hold the right to self-determination through secession.. 👋

Norylo said:Look, Dragiša, I don't know why you decided to hijack a thread meant specifically for discussing how certain groups are basically archetypes of savages, lowlifes, and pure trash.

So, was that actually your take—that they’re just archetypes of savages and scum—or are you just trying to play it safe by claiming that's what the topic was about?